Eric: Now that Shap himself has admitted that GayTube.com had stolen content on it...
can i get unbanned?
Is it proof enough?
Originally posted by Shap
The site does not have any stolen content on it now. It is 100% clean and will remain that way. Was it 100% clean a week ago? Regretfully, no it wasn't. I did not authorize it but ultimately I take full responsibility for it.
You bring nothing to the board anyways... stay banned
Originally posted by rayadp05
I rebooted, deleted temp files, history, cookies and everything...still cannot view the news clip. All I see is that fucking gay ass music video from "Rick Roll". Anyone else have a different link to the news clip?
I wish some of these twits would read up on user submitted content and the guidelines for having a site like that. In order to bypass 2257 you cannot actively remove content without following some guidelines. Signs of obvious cp, beast vids etc can be removed. Once you begin monitoring and removing content sans dmca request you lose the 2257 loophole. Whatever though not worth even arguing about.
I wish some of these twits would read up on user submitted content and the guidelines for having a site like that. In order to bypass 2257 you cannot actively remove content without following some guidelines. Signs of obvious cp, beast vids etc can be removed. Once you begin monitoring and removing content sans dmca request you lose the 2257 loophole. Whatever though not worth even arguing about.
Oh no, if Jet isn't unbanned how is he going to collect on all his contest winnings that are due him because the contest rules clearly state that you must have an active gfy account. I say we just take all his contest winnings that are due him and buy his neighbors some xmas presents.
"WTF, on google you can find the answer to every question in human history, EXCEPT how to convert cams..
<edit> nevermind.. read your statement about 2257 etc. But given nothing in that law has been tested in court, your fantasy that it's not illegal is just that.. a fantasy..
<edit> nevermind.. read your statement about 2257 etc. But given nothing in that law has been tested in court, your fantasy that it's not illegal is just that.. a fantasy..
Does everyone really not understand how "user submitted" content works? As was said before. Currently this is a huge gray area. Until legislation is passed there was nothing illegal. Infringement? Yes, but technically a dmca is required for the site to remove the content. If the site starts policing the content and removes anything other than obviously "illegal" cp, beasty stuff, etc, at that point the 2257 loophole falls apart, and they would be open to 2257 inspection if they are in the states. Do I think its a good thing? Yes and no. The laws need to be streamlined more in order to fix things.
I just get tired of people trying to make a name by attacking whoever they can without having any idea of the facts and circumstances. Ban hammer needs to be thrown more often.
What i meant was that the site was illegal in a broad term - considered by adult business community - that is, having unlicensed content on it and giving it away for free.
Using your logic, torrent sites and rapidshare type site are perfectly okay, which is NOT the case.
What i meant was that the site was illegal in a broad term - considered by adult business community - that is, having unlicensed content on it and giving it away for free.
Using your logic, torrent sites and rapidshare type site are perfectly okay, which is NOT the case.
If you are going to run a "user submitted" video site and be able to do it there is only 2 ways.
1. somehow obtain 2257 docs from each user of the site. Run it like a cam site say like Ifriends etc. People are not getting paid, so very unlikely you can make this happen.
2. you allow user submitted content. You cannot police the content and pick and choose with what is uploaded. You remove content only when a copyright holder submits a dmca request. You only remove obvious illegal material such as Cp, and beasty, rape scenes, etc.
This arguement is flawed on so many levels, I don't even want to go in there.
How about an hour long user submitted video? Is it "obvious" enough?
Well the way for the site to get around that is to limit the length of videos, and limit file sizes. Say 10 minute videos be the limit and say 175mb files.
Just curious what dog do you have in the fight? Are tube sites somehow going to decrease your contest earnings? Or have tube sites slowed down the number of packages left outside doorways in your building that you can "borrow"
Well the way for the site to get around that is to limit the length of videos, and limit file sizes. Say 10 minute videos be the limit and say 175mb files.
Who's to decide what lenght or size the video should be?
Bottom line is: sites offering unlicenced content are unacceptible no matter how you spin it.
You tried to create drama about a well known + respected gfyer, it backfired... now quit whining and accept the consequences like a man...
Respected? LOL. Not lately.
As for drama, check the GFY rules page. It clearly states that drama is very welcome. And no rules were broken - more evidence had been presented than it was enough.
Oh, and Shap actually posted that he loved the attention that Twistys was getting from all the drama. So why did he run crying to the mods to ban me and lock the thread?
Does everyone really not understand how "user submitted" content works?
There's a huge difference between user "submitted" and user "created"... You simply cannot legally use anything that's been copyrighted without the rights to use it... You can talk about "gray areas" and split hairs, but at the end of the day everyone knows what's right and wrong.
There's a huge difference between user "submitted" and user "created"... You simply cannot legally use anything that's been copyrighted without the rights to use it... You can talk about "gray areas" and split hairs, but at the end of the day everyone knows what's right and wrong.
Yes what everyone knows, and what would take a federal bite out of a sites ass are two different things.
Yes what everyone knows, and what would take a federal bite out of a sites ass are two different things.
That's the difference between a scumbag and an ethical person.. Those that do what they know to be wrong but they an get away with due to loopholes and gray areas are the scumbags... Everyone knows which side you come down on...
That's the difference between a scumbag and an ethical person.. Those that do what they know to be wrong but they an get away with due to loopholes and gray areas are the scumbags... Everyone knows which side you come down on...
No apparently you do not.
Are youtube scumbags? They follow the rules for user submitted content. They must be scumbags and content thief's huh? Jebus Christ.
There's a huge difference between user "submitted" and user "created"... You simply cannot legally use anything that's been copyrighted without the rights to use it... You can talk about "gray areas" and split hairs, but at the end of the day everyone knows what's right and wrong.
There's a difference between "what's right/what's wrong" and "what's legal /illegal".
50% of the time, the advice is right
50% of the time, the advice is wrong but,
99.9% of the time, the advice isn't legal
Very little is worse in a public forum than an ill-informed town crier.
nitwitlegaladvice.com is available
nitwitlegalgroup.com is available
nitwitsunite.com is available
nitwitgroup.com is available
nitwitforum.com is available
Comment